.. I think that there could be as many 6 votes for this one , possibly 7 …

.. well , start at the beginning . Lori Friedrichs is a schoolteacher in California . She resigned for her union , the C.T.A . This union is , to be specific , the California Teachers Association ..

.. California is not a union – friendly state . Since the latter part of the 1970s , the reigning SCOTUS precedent , Abood v Detroit Bd of Ed , has allowed unions to collect fees [agency fees , to be exact] from non – members of the union . These people are required by law , however , to be members of the collective bargaining unit , no matter what ..

.. like many who resign from the union , Friederichs endured quite a bit . Teachers who resign from their union get a large amount of professional shunning and personal abuse from their fellow teachers . Yet she endured , as did several dozen others ..

.. now SCOTUS has offered certiorari on these folks appeal from their loss at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals . Given the rulings and precedents of recent years , such as Beck v CWA , Ferris State Teachers , and Knox v CTA, the ground could be extremely dangerous for the AFL – CIO and their member unions ..

.. Now , the officers involved in the Tamir Rice case have had their day in court , at least so far . how , you might ask . They have acted to appear before a grand jury . They have also filled out and have made sworn statements , under penalty of perjury . A bit unusual , I admit ..

.. .. these two guys have made a tactical blunder , at the least . Why , do you ask ? ..

.. The officers in this case [Timothy Grambach and William Loehrmann] should have kept their mouths shut . In that way , they could still have invoked their 5th amendment rights against self incrimination . Now , they cannot do so ..

.. the officers can be called back before the grand jury . If they refuse to testify , then they can be charged with [at least] civil contempt . Even more so , they could even be charged with criminal contempt , and be indicted and charged for that , instead of the shooting ..

.. they did pass a bill , and DC mayor Vincent Gray has indicated that he will sign it … it is the subject of a court case , though , and that is where the problems start …

… more to come …

–[update]– they have created a process that has basically left it virtually impossible for anyone to get a gun to carry on the streets of the District . Where the Court decision [Palmer v DC] set it , that was not what the District Court had in mind ….

.. there is likely to be more court action on this case . I will guarantee it . Also , the new Congress will be keeping a e eye on this case , without a doubt . If the D.C. Circuit tries to ” screw around ” with the original case , once it hits the appeals level , then it is my expectation that Congress will step in and legislate a solution on its own , no matter how much the D.C. City Government screams bloody murder …

This seems to miss an obvious causal step: the “mandate on insurers” at issue here is not merely a general ACA requirement to provide contraception coverage, but a series of cost-sharing mandates that are not triggered unless the religious groups fill out the form. In a powerful dissent, Judge Janice Rogers Brown explains why this is nonsense:

[T]his case is not “paradoxical” because Plaintiffs object to regulatory requirements the government intended as a religious accommodation. That the government’s expressed intent in enacting the regulations at issue was to allay religious adherents’ concerns about the contraception mandate is not determinative of the ultimate question of whether Plaintiffs were in fact accommodated. Where the government imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise and labels it an “accommodation,” that burden is surely as distressing to adherents as it would be if imposed without such a designation. Therefore, heightened skepticism is not appropriate. We should look at Plaintiffs’ claims as we would any RFRA claim. After all, in the substantial burden analysis, the government’s motivations— no matter how benevolent—are irrelevant; we ask only whether the government’s action operates to place “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.”

[…]

Plaintiffs identify at least two acts that the regulations compel them to perform that they believe would violate their religious obligations: (1) “hiring or maintaining a contractual relationship with any company required, authorized, or incentivized to provide contraceptive coverage to beneficiaries enrolled in Plaintiffs’ health plans,” Pet. for Reh’g En Banc at 3; and (2) “filing the self-certification or notification,” id. at 4. Plaintiffs have therefore shown both that they are being compelled to modify their behavior and that, if undertaken, the modification would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

[…]

The panel did not dispute that federal law operates to compel Plaintiffs to maintain a relationship with an issuer or TPA that will provide the contraceptive coverage and to execute the self-certification or alternative notice. Their disagreement with Plaintiffs is about the significance of those compelled acts; in other words, the panel rejected the “adherents’ claim about the religious meaning of the undisputed operation of [] federal regulation[s].”

.. you can count on this one going before the Supremes . SCOTUS will not be able to avoid it . The Court could even be down one justice , though . Why ? ..

.. I think that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is slowly dying . Especially since she has already escaped pancreatic cancer once [already] , she is living on borrowed time . She wants to do as much damage as she still can while she still lives . However , I am betting [especially with Chuck Grasseley in charge of the Senate Judiciary Cmte] that …. His Lordship will try to push thru a radical leftist as her replacement , and the GOP – controlled Senate will have nothing of it …

.. Mark Vaughn is a reserve county sheriff in Moore , Oklahoma . He is also the c.o.o. of his family ‘ s company , Vaughn Foods , a food processing company . When crisis came , he got his gun , and stepped up to the plate …

.. when an ex – con former employee went berserk , and murdered a customer service employee , and then attacked and wounded another person , he stepped up …

.. he went and got his gun ..

.. as a result , the perp is still alive , unfortunately . Vaughn saved probably countless other lives as a result of his actions . How ? He did it with his personal sidearm that he kept under lock and key in his office …

.. unfortunately , it will take political and legal will to take the case to SCOTUS to bring this silly fight to a conclusion ..

.. the District of Columbia is on notice . They have to allow private citizens to own guns . Not only that , but they have to allow private citizens to ” bear , ” or possess guns on the streets . The courts have made it clear …

.. the 2nd Amendment is an individual right . it is a part and was included as a part of the Bill of Rights for a very good reason . Jurisdictions nationwide cannot prohibit people from ” owning ” and ” bearing ” guns …

.. the state never thought or realized that San Diego County would not challenge the case , or the original ruling . When the County stood down , the state screwed around and did nothing …

.. now , the State of California tried to intervene . It realized that the Peruta ruling applied to the entire state , as well as the state of Hawaii [the 2 states in the 9th Circuit] . They would then become a ” shall issue ” state when they did not intend to do so …

.. the full 9th Circuit shut the State of California down . As much as they may have agreed with the State [philosophically] , procedurally , the Circuit knew that the State royally screwed up and did not challenge the decision when they should have . Now , they are stuck with the decision …

.. whether that it is good politics or is good policy is not the point . The issue is morality , constitutionality , and legality …

.. Our POTUS is not a dictator . He / She is obligated to make sure that the ” laws be faithfully be executed . ” POTUS does not pass laws , he / she signs bills into law ….

.. especially in the area of immigration . The rules and law of immigration are given by our Constitution to Congress , not the President , and especially not the judiciary . As a result , Congress makes the law in this area , like many others where it has either explicit and / or implicit power(s) under the Consitution …

.. what came up at the US Supreme Court recently in Horne v. Department of Agriculture …

.. The Horne family is one of raisin growers . Many of our agricultural products have been subject to what are called ” marketing orders ” since the Depression – era programs of the late 1930s . What they do is ” take ” a portion of the grower ‘ s product , and use it to ” stabilize ” the market ..

.. what has never been quite established is that these ” marketing orders ” are takings under our US Constitution under the Fifth Amendment . Yes , the Fifth Amendment , remember the second clause ..

.. what the Supreme Court decided [and , as usual , the media butchered] is that yes , these marketing orders are a taking ..

.. Carrie Severino of National Review puts it better ..

The Court had to address three questions to decide whether this constituted a taking, and on this question, eight justices were in agreement.

First, it determined whether the Constitution’s Takings Clause, the text of which simply addresses “private property,” covers only real estate, or whether it also covers personal property (like the raisins in this case). The Court rightly held that the words “private property” are broad enough to cover property in general, so “the Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home.” This reading is particularly sensible in light of history, including Revolutionary War-era appropriations of personal property that angered the colonists and likely inspired the constitutional protections. The Chief even cited the understanding of property in the Magna Carta, which just last week celebrated its 800th birthday.

The second question for the Court was whether a contingent residual interest in the property was enough to compensate growers for the taking. In this case, after the raisins were disposed of (in various noncompetitive markets or even given away), growers were paid their share of any net proceeds – often less than the cost of producing the crop or nothing at all. The Court held that the speculative possibility of a payment at a later date was not sufficient to save the scheme. Law students will recall that even forcible installation of a cable box on a rooftop constitutes a taking due (presumably small) compensation. In light of that precedent, it’s hard to see why losing control over how one’s crop is used wouldn’t be a taking. Under the USDA’s program, the government takes title to (full legal ownership of) the raisins and has the right to dispose of them however it wants. Any residual funds paid to growers would simply be accounted to the “just compensation” due for such a taking.

It’s significant that the physical taking of the raisins was key to the Court’s result on both these questions. While many have decried the burden that purely regulatory takings place on the economy, the Court’s decision explicitly distinguishes this case from that sort of taking. So the answer may have come out differently if, for example, growers were simply limited in the ways they could use their raisins rather than having their raisins physically “appropriated” from them and title given to the government. That case will have to wait for another term.

The third question considered by the Court was whether the raisin-confiscation scheme was still a taking despite the fact that it was a “condition on permission to engage in commerce.” The government was arguing, in effect, that the raisin growers opted into this scheme voluntarily in exchange for being allowed to sell their crop at all. But Chief Justice Roberts wrote that saying “let them sell wine” (the vintner’s equivalent of “let them eat cake”) is cold comfort and anyway outside the government’s authority. While the government can require compliance with safety regulations for sellers of pesticides,

Selling produce in interstate commerce, although certainly subject to reasonable government regulation, is . . . not a special governmental benefit that the Government may hold hostage, to be ransomed by the waiver of constitutional protection.

As the Chief put it, “[r]aisins are not dangerous pesticides; they are a healthy snack.” And selling normal agricultural products shouldn’t require farmers to go to the government with hat in hand.

But even a wine cellar can’t reach the chilling effects of the government‘s asserted entitlement to control of the growers’ property. While the government had the good sense not to endorse the Ninth Circuit’s attempts to limit the Fifth Amendment to protecting real property, it showed little respect for property owners. Its arguments suggested that Americans should have to ask permission from their benevolent overlords to be allowed to enter the marketplace at all. The government argued that being allowed to “keep the change” after a third party disposed of nearly half the annual crop was equivalent to retaining full ownership of the literal fruit of one’s labors.

The 5-4 section of the opinion dealt with whether the Hornes had received just compensation for their raisins. The Chief held that the value of the grapes had already been established by the government itself when it assessed a nearly half-million dollar fine on the Hornes as the value of the grapes they refused to release to federal agents. The case was thus neatly resolved by simply canceling out the fine imposed by the government.

.. and , once again , the political leadership in the District ends up looking like a bunch of damn fools ..

.. a new case came up . No , it is not the original one [Palmer v. D.C.] , which struck down the District ‘ s clear gun rights ban . This one is much different . It was brought by 4 individuals , each of whom wanted to own a gun in the District of Columbia . As you might expect , the District ‘ s P.D. [under the new restrictive ” may issue ” gun law ] refused to issue each of these individuals a license to own a gun …

.. Big problem for the District , however . The U.S. Constitution allows for individuals to own and ” bear ” arms . Plain and Simple . Also , no ” Mother , may I ” about it …

“This conclusion should not be read to suggest that it would be inappropriate for the District of Columbia to enact a licensing mechanism that includes appropriate time, place and manner restrictions on the carrying of handguns in public,” Judge Scullin said in his ruling. “The District of Columbia’s arbitrary ‘good reason’/’proper reason’ requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable restrictions.”

“Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

“Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

Well, that was the point. The district’s establishment wants to make it impossible or very nearly so for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights in the nation’s capital, and they calculated this law to leave themselves enough room to guarantee it. This particular effort was so bad, though, that it was doomed to failure, and should embarrass everyone associated with it. The law essentially said that constitutional rights can be rationed by government only on the basis that government sees a “good reason” to allow it. I’m pretty sure that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind with the Bill of Rights.

The city tried to argue that the “good reason” requirement was connected to public safety, but Scullin rejected the argument :

While, as stated, Defendants argue that the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement relates reasonably to its interest in preventing crime and protecting public safety, they have not established that relationship.

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting). Nor does the District of Columbia’s “good 12 reason”/”proper reason” requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn’t it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime.

.. first Palmer , now this case . It is only a temporary injunction , but it is an injunction . To get one , you have to show a very strong likelihood that you will ” win on the merits . ” This one may well skip the D.C. Appeals Court , and go right to the U.S. Supreme Court ..

.. because , in this day and age , in particular , even idiots and bigots have rights …

.. even more so because of the wAY The ObamaCraps are abusing the University disciplinary system . They are tryii ng to rig it for their own evil and disgraceful purposeses .So , you cannot just sit back and take things lying down …

.. remember the recent rape episode at the University of Virginia ? Eh , I thought that you might . An entire fraternity got railroaded by the system , until the news article that spawned it [in Rolling Stone , I think] was thoroughly discredited …

.. I am a proud fraternity man and graduate . I am a Sigma Phi Epsilon man , thank you very much . So I am very , very proud of the Greek system and what it represents .

.. these idiots are bigots , pure and simple . They deserve to be shunned . Whether they deserve to be kicked out of the University of Oklahoma is another matter , entirely . By the by …

.. O.U. is a state school . So , these guys have rights . Yeah , even bigots have rights , even the right to make a colossal idiot of themselves . However , if you want to get rid of them , then do it by the rules . You do not summarily dismiss them , as O.U. President David Boren has done . That move has opened O.U up to a honey of a damage suit …

.. Un – Uh … It will be tossed by a court in your local jurisdiction . Well , it sure as hell should be ..

.. if not , it will be by the 1st Circuit Appeals Court , you dummies …

.. the US Supreme Court decision was unanimous . 9 to 0 . Get the point . You can have a ” buffer zone ” law , yes . But having something like was proposed in the new state law ? No , not even close . Something that especially that is content – based …. the Supremes have said that that manuveur is a very very big no – no …

.. for many years , the District of Columbia has had one of , if not the fiercest gun grab laws in the country . You simply could not carry a gun on the streets of the District for ANY reason , for more than 50 years ..

.. it will be interesting to see what the D.C. city government decides to do . This case is in federal court , not the captive courts of the District , and would go up to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals , where both Heller and McDonald originated . I think that the government wants to appeal this , and maintain their precious gun ban , but the gun grab groups may well be having second thoughts ..

.. First , this one has to go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals . It now has a more stacked 7to4 democrap majority , but Heller and McDonald are binding precedent . They just may well try to mess with them, surprisingly enough . Doing so , though , would piss off the Supremes ….

.. Heller and McDonald were decided 6 to 3 , not 5 to 4 , so they are not slim majorities . The gun – grab groups may not want to risk setting a nationwide case precedent . Drake v. Jerejian might be one case . Moore v Madigan might be another case . Palmer just may be a case were the gun grab groups are stupid enough to push it up the way , and have it blow up in their faces ..

.. especially when the definition of ” bear ” arms comes from , not a majority opinion , but a dissent , and of all people , from Justice Ginsberg in a dissent in another case …

.. what was originally done was that Concealed Carry permit applicants were turned down , and not given a reason . Someone should have known better . At least the State Police is thinking , I hope …

.. what will be done now is that , if one is turned down for a C.C.L. license , then they will be given a reason . That reason will , presumably , give the person the jurisdiction or location who is sticking their nose in the works . It will then give them a fairer chance and a lot less grief over the process …

.. most folks are of limited means . They usually have good reason for a C.C.L. license . When they are turned down , they should be told . Nowadays , they can get help from various gun – rights groups that will be set up in a position to help the public with the bureaucratic maze in Illinois …

The veteran and three of his friends were leaving a party on the city’s south side. When the group reached their vehicle, a container with liquor was sitting on top of it. A woman from the group asked another group gathered next door who the liquor belonged to and removed it.

The move angered 22 year-old Denzel Mickiel, who approached the veteran and his friends shouting obscenities. The man then went into his residence and returned with a gun.

As Mickiel opened fire on the group, the veteran took cover near the vehicle’s front fender, according to assistant state attorney Mary Hain, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The veteran fired two shots, hitting Mickiel both times.

Two of Mickiel’s friends also began shooting at the group, which was able to flee the scene in their vehicle.

Mickiel was transported to the hospital and is in critical condition. A woman in the veteran’s group was hit twice – once in the arm and once in the back – but was stabilized and taken to the hospital.

Mickiel is charged with attempted murder and will be held on $950,000 bond.

Had Friday’s shooting occurred a little more than a year ago, the veteran would not have been legally permitted to conceal carry his firearm.

.. you really should read this article . It is a real dandy . It describes the antics of the so – called ” Democracy Alliance ” in simple , yet harrowing detail …

The campaign finance reform efforts of a massive network of liberal and Democratic groups are explicitly designed to limit conservatives’ ability to oppose key parts of the left’s agenda, according to the head of the group coordinating those efforts.

The admission comes as parts of that network attempt to present the case for campaign finance reform as politically and ideologically neutral, and to recruit and reach out to conservatives and Republicans who might support it under those pretenses.

Democracy Alliance president Gara LaMarche presented the organization’s push for such reform, which involves a litany of major left-wing political and policy groups, not simply as a foil against corruption or corporate capture but as a prerequisite for the group’s other policy goals, all of which are left of center.

In a presentation at the Democracy Alliance’s April donor conference in Chicago, LaMarche lamented recent Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United vs. FEC and McCutcheon vs. FEC—that loosened restrictions, respectively, on political speech by corporations and unions and individual campaign contributions.

“If we can’t succeed in turning this around, and it will take some years to do it, we will never make the progress we need to make on critical issues facing the country and the world like climate change and gun violence,” he said, according to prepared remarks obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Altering the nation’s campaign finance laws, he said, would allow the Democracy Alliance and its network of affiliated groups to more easily advance liberal policies that have nothing to do with campaign finance.

“In that crucial sense, dealing with the distorting effect of money on our politics is a prerequisite to every other advance we seek,” LaMarche said.

The Democracy Alliance and groups to which it steers tens of millions of dollars every year frequently denounce Republican political donors, chiefly libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch.

“Increasingly, elections in the U.S. are in the grip of a handful of our version of the Russian oligarchs,” LaMarche told DA conference attendees. “The money in this room does its best to compete in our current broken system, but unlike our conservative counterparts, we want a new system in which all voices and votes are equal.”

Democracy Alliance critics say that concern for a supposedly level political playing field actually masks the group’s true intent: to restrict its political opponents’ ability to oppose the larger left-wing policy agenda.

Hans Von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commissioner and the head of the Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative, said LaMarche’s comments betray the partisan motives behind the group’s campaign finance reform push.

“This is really a stunning admission by the misnamed Democracy Alliance that the real purpose of so called campaign finance reform is to silence those who don’t agree with the progressive, liberal agenda of Gara LaMarche and all of his political allies, who consist of the most liberal donors in the country,” he wrote in an email.

Von Spakovsky said LaMarche and his organization want to “throw out the First Amendment—the Bill of Rights is obviously an inconvenient, archaic anomaly to him.”

The DA’s push for campaign finance reform has involved a number of groups that its donors fund that push for additional restrictions on social welfare nonprofits and corporate political spending (though labor unions are rarely targeted).

One of those groups, the Fund for the Republic, has worked to present the case for such reforms as bipartisan and politically neutral.

The group recently hired a number of Republicans in an effort to reach out to potential conservative supporters, though one of those Republicans was formerly a senior staffer for the Democratic governor of Massachusetts.

Despite denunciations from LaMarche and others associated with the group of the country’s post-Citizens United campaign finance landscape, Democracy Alliance conference attendees have encouraged its network of high-dollar donors to support political groups empowered by the Citizens Untied decision.

The Alliance’s perceived closeness with the Democratic Party and the Obama White House led to a schism among its supported groups in 2012. A number of them, seen as more movement than party-oriented, parted ways with the Alliance as a result.

LaMarche acknowledged those misgivings in a June letter to former Democracy Alliance donors urging them to take another look at the group and its work.

“Some former partners had the perception we were not sufficiently independent of the Democratic Party or the White House, or failed to take a long enough view of infrastructure and power-building beyond the next election cycle,” he wrote.

.. until this year , gun sales were effectively prohibited in the City of Chicago . No more . Courtesy of a ruling in a case brought by the Illinois Shooting Sports Federation , Federal Judge Edward Change basically slapped down the city . He has given the city up to 6 months to enact gun store sales regulations . If they do not straighten up and fly right , the judge can enact them by court ruling …

.. if he has to do that , it will be open season in the City . Which City Hall will hate with a passion . Those dummies have to remember , they are still under the precedent from Chang ‘ s original ruling , plus the ruling in Moore v. Madigan . They have to obey it . like it or not …

.. they may wish that the state would appeal Moore to the US Supreme Court , but the anti – gun groups are scared to death . If the Moore precedent is applied nationwide , a whole boatload of gun laws , like the Wiilliams Act and SAFE in New York (for example) would go bye – bye …

.. doing it on the federal level might be illegal . Albeit some co – ordination is permitted . Wisconsin laws evidently are quite different ..

.. the ” John Doe ” prosecutors are quite sore that they had their supposed investigation shut down . It was a clear abuse of 1st Amendment rights , and the federal appeals court called them on it . The surprise is the Club for Growth …

.. I am a little bit surprised that the Club for Growth wanted the documents that the prosecutors accumulated disclosed . The documents would appear to be put in the worst light , making the Club and Gov Walker look bad . Their conduct might even look illegal . However , it was not , and it never was , even before the Citizens United case . The disclosure was a smart move . It mitigates any attempt at spin by anyone during this year ‘ s campaign , or in the future . Now , Gov Walker and the club for growth are in the clear , and have nothing to worry about …

.. Those dummies should read the Constitution . Congress authorizes the issuance and terms of debt . POTUS signs the legislation , and ” faithfully carries it out . ” Which means according to the terms set in the law , not by Obama executive fiat . That includes , of course , Student Loan debt . Learn how to read , you idiots …

.. Jack Phillips is an evangelical Christian . He founded his business in Lakewood , Colorado (a suburb of Denver) in the summer of 1993 . One would think that a small businessman , one who does cakes and other bakery products would not cause a big ruckus . One would be wrong ..

.. As an evangelical Christian , Jack Phillips will not do any events for same – sex ceremonies . He has done business with many same – sex couples for other events . He just will not do so for so – called ” same – sex weddings ” and other ceremonies of the like , because of his religious beliefs . As a result , a ” couple ” sued Phillips in the courts in 2012 …

.. The Colorado ” Civil Rights ” Commision upheld the act of an administrative law judge , finding Phillips and his business [Masterpiece Cakeshop] , guilty of discrimination in failing to serve the ” couple . ” It also ordered other ” remedial ” acts for Phillips to undertake . Why ?

.. The Commission has forgotten that Phillips has constitutional rights under the First Amendment , and that those apply to the states , courtesy of the 14th Amendment . Ergo , his constitutional rights to freedom of religion outweigh those created by statute by the State of Colorado . Colorado and other similarly activist states should remember that when they try to pull a stunt such as this …

.. evidently , Milwaukee County [yes , that is Wisconsin] sheriff David Clarke is one very fervent advocate for our gun rights and the Second Amendment …. here is his version of how the Second Amendment should be updated …

Milwaukee Sheriff David A. Clarke spoke at the NRA convention this weekend and called for a 7-word addition to the 2nd Amendment. His addition sounded like this:

“
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed – Keep your hands off our guns, dammit.

His addition was in response to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” in which Stevens called for a 5-word addition to the 2nd Amendment. Stevens’ addition was “the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”

In his speech, Clarke said, ““My reaction was, What! Just what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ does Justice Stevens not understand?”

Clarke became a well-known figure in the gun world when last year he took out a radio ad urging Milwaukee residents to learn how to properly use a firearm to defend themselves while waiting for the police to arrive.

.. I would highly recommend that you watch the interview footage . It is an intriguing interview , and very opinionated . I agree with Andrew , it is a gross abuse of the pardon power …

.. if POTUS wants to change the law , then he should submit the changes that he would like to see happen to Congress . He should learn how to bargain and reach for what he really wants . He does not have to grossly abuse the powers and duties of his office to pull stunts like this piece of crap …

.. the numbers on this one could really get out of hand . I am thinking that it could soar into the tens of thousands . When Jimmy Carter issued conditional pardons to Vietnam – era draft evaders and resistors , the numbers reached up to near 45 , 000 . There have been more , though ..

.. The times after our Civil War were something to behold . President Lincoln had been assassinated , just 5 weeks into his second term . What most had not realized at the time (immediately) was that he had run on a Union ticket with Tennessee Democrat Andrew Johnson . When Lincoln died , Johnson became President . The strife that marked his term was immense . When he was about to leave office , Johnson did something that was gutsy . He pardoned all of the Confederate army veterans . All of them . Estimates ran to about 750 , 000 men that were pardoned . There was nothing that Congress could do …

.. Ironoically , given the calls post – war , there was only one Confederate soldier who was tried by military tribunal for war crimes … Major Henry Wirz , the commander of the Andersonville prison camp in Georgia , was the one and only one who was tried . He was convicted and was subsequently executed for his acts …

.. my understanding is that His Lordship (Obama) is planning to grant clemency (possibly even reprieves , or even pardons) to hundreds , thousands , possibly even tens of thousands of criminals . Well , under the U.S. Constitution , he does have that power ..

.. The Amendments to our Constitution were a political deal . Yes , you heard that right . They were promised as a part of the ratification process of the Constitution , in the first place …

.. the Constitution was having troubles being accepted and ratified , in particular in the state of New York . Promises were made as a result of the ratification conventions that were held in each state to ratify the document . The folks who were participating in those gatherings were folks who were either already in state government , or who were likely to be in the new federal government . Yes , these promises were made to amend the document to add changes to it …

.. these changes would eventually become known as our Bill of Rights . It is because they were added in , not because they were collective guarantees . They were added in as guarantees of individual rights , not collective or group rights . It is the same with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments , except those do apply via individuals through the state governments to protect the states from the overreach of the Federal Government …

By now you probably know about Hamid Abutalebi. He’s the would-be diplomat whom Iran wanted to send to the United Nations – but whom Congress blocked, on a strongly bipartisan vote, because he was among the terrorists who helped take Americans into captivity in the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979.

Today, President Barack Obama signed Congress’ bill into law – and then immediately appended a signing statement informing the world he would not enforce the law he’d just signed.

“Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress’s concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation,” Obama wrote.

“Nevertheless, as President [George H.W.] Bush also observed, ‘curtailing by statute my constitutional discretion to receive or reject ambassadors is neither a permissible nor a practical solution.’ I shall therefore continue to treat section 407, as originally enacted and as amended by S. 2195, as advisory in circumstances in which it would interfere with the exercise of this discretion.”

In other words, Obama is saying he intends to treat the bill, which bars Abutalebi from entering the U.S., as a piece of advice and nothing more, using as a pretense a Bush I precedent that emanated from a squabble with Congress over dictating to the President a job the Constitution already empowers him with carrying out.

The bill barring Abutalebi from setting foot on U.S. soil was authored by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and received strong support from both side of the aisle. Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) didn’t hesitate to use language so strongly condemning Abutalebi’s nomination that Cruz himself might as well have spoken the same words.

Iran’s foreign minister responded to the vote by calling Congress a pack of “radicals,” reaffirming in the process that Congress had made the right call from the start.

With Obama’s ambivalent action today, Abutalebi appears to be headed, illegally, to the U.S. as the Iranian ambassador to the UN. But it’s doubtful at this point that he’ll be deported.

.. Now , back to me :

.. dumb – dumb , your constitutional power to receive ambassadors refers to Ambassadors to the United States , stupid , not Ambassadors of a nation to the United Nations . Slight difference , doufus ! …

.. the United States has the rights under the Headquarters Agreement with the U.N. to regulate visas for U.N. Ambassadors . We always have . It is one that has been done with great care , and other nations (even ones with which we [the U.S.] do not have relations) do not do stupid things by nominating ambassadors that will intentionally piss us off . It just is not done .

.. those nations will put ” illegals ” [intel agents undercover as diplomats] on their diplomatic cover . Guess what , so do we . It is part of the diplomatic process . You just make sure that your ” diplomats ” do not get caught . If they do , then it is bye – bye time ! …

.. if he tries to not enforce this one , and let this guy in anyway , there is going to be an uproar over it . Also , there will be a lawsuit , probably by the House of Representatives . I doubt that any private citizen would have standing to enforce it . Congress is going to have to do it . The Senate will not …. Dingy Harry will cover his Lordship ‘ s backside (but maybe not on this ?) …

.. there might even be calls for impeachment in the House , as well . That would not surprise me at all . Given his executive misconduct and abuses of power , he deserves it . But , it takes a spark to provoke it . This one would be a doozy , and just might do it …

.. not only are hundreds of Mexicans dying because of the gun – trafficking antics from the scheme of F & F , the idiots in the Federal Government are making things worse …. much worse . The cartels are starting to move in on our side of the border , and they are bringing F & F guns with them …